We all know James "Uncle" Fetzer, former OIC'er and all around wind bag.
Well it seems he asked the wrong question to the right guy.
Professor James Norwood, Former OIC Chairman, takes Jabba to school.....
Retired university professor
James H. Fetzer occasionally sends communications about new research to a list
of JFK specialists across the nation. On
October 15, I received one of these communications that pertains to a recent
internet video featuring Professor Fetzer and several of the members of the
Oswald Innocence Campaign. Professor
Fetzer’s query to the group was as follows:
“Could there be a stronger proof:
Oswald WAS ‘the man in the doorway?’”
The following is my response to Professor Fetzer:
Dear Jim,
I'm sorry to say that after
watching your video "Oswald WAS the 'Man in the Doorway'", I do not
find the presentation persuasive. Indeed, this level of speculative
discourse is counter-productive to the goal that we all share in our dedication
to the truth in the JFK assassination. It may be a fun exercise to
speculate on photo anomalies or to tinker with computer images. But that
does not constitute a "proof" in any sense of the word.
Since the last time we met in
Madison in fall 2014, I have carefully studied the provenance of the Altgens
photo. I located fifteen newspapers in which the Altgens photo was
published on the afternoon and early evening of November 22. I conducted
interviews with the staff of one of the afternoon newspapers. These journalists published the Altgens
photograph as the paper’s centerpiece on the front page. I spoke at length on
the phone with the editor who handled the Altgens photo when it arrived off the
newswires shortly after 1:00pm. As disappointing as this finding is for
your desired conclusion, there are multiple witnesses who corroborated this
timeline, plus the physical evidence of the newspaper itself. For the
first time, we now have a precise identification of the earliest known
newspaper presentation of the Altgens photo to the American public:
1:45pm on November 22, 1963.
The chain of possession of
the Altgens photograph is not at all like the circuitous journey around the
nation taken by the Zapruder film during the assassination weekend. In the
case of the photo, the chain is impeccable with Altgens himself walking his
film into the Dallas News Building for development and subsequent release to
the public. The film may have been out of Altgens' hands only for ten to
fifteen minutes during the dark room processing. The fastidious
investigator Harold Weisberg concluded that the Altgens6 photo was "the
first on the wires." Quite simply, there was no time for the
alterations that you are suggesting.
Ralph Cinque has been aware
of my findings since May of this year. Pursuant to my resignation from
the OIC over this issue, Ralph has instructed me never to contact him again via
e-mail. At the same time, he continues to post slanderous remarks about me on
his blog, as he follows my commentaries around the internet.
Specifically, he has stated that as a university professor, I am unfit to be
teaching young people because I do not believe that the Altgens photo has been
altered. Additionally, he has threatened to take legal action against me because
I disagree with him about his photo interpretations.
It is important to get some
perspective on this issue of "the man in the doorway." For the
truly groundbreaking researchers like Jim Douglass, David Talbot, and John
Armstrong, the Doorman issue is a non-starter. Douglass even deleted
several pages about the Doorman topic between the publication of the first and
second editions of his book JFK and the Unspeakable. Talbot's
recent book, The Devil's Chessboard, reveals new information about what
Allen Dulles was doing between the time he was dismissed by JFK as Director of
the CIA in 1961 until the moment of the assassination on November 22,
1963. Armstrong keeps updating his findings from Harvey and Lee
about how the CIA framed Oswald as the patsy. This kind of substantial
investigatory work truly advances our understanding of the JFK
assassination. By contrast, the theory of photo alteration of Altgens 6
has never convinced even a fraction of the internet community, let alone the
wider public. You've had enough time to make your case, and your current
video offers nothing new. Your video has already been the subject of
derision on the internet. For the most part, however, no one even cares,
especially with the name of Ralph Cinque attached to the program.
So, to answer your question,
"Could there be stronger proof?", the answer is an unqualified
yes. If every American citizen would simply take the time to read JFK
and the Unspeakable, The Devil's Chessboard, and Harvey and Lee,
everyone would have the basis for understanding the truth about how JFK died and
we would not be wasting time with such inconsequential and inconclusive matters
as the "man in the doorway."
I would also observe the
disturbing manner in which Ralph Cinque seeks to force this Altgens photo
alteration story onto whomever he contacts on the internet. When a theory
turns into a belief system, then it becomes something other than persuasive
historical research. I am appending below an excerpt from Cinque's recent
blog posting about me, which speaks for itself.
If we all truly want to make
a difference in raising awareness about the JFK assassination, then I would
suggest that you and your friends at OIC are going about it the wrong way.
With best regards,
James
Addendum: Excerpts from "Oswald in the doorway: the blog of
the Oswald Innocence Campaign, written by Ralph Cinque
"So, let me get this straight: I know you have abandoned Oswald in the doorway--But, the question is: have you also abandoned Oswald innocence?
Am I saying that, as an Oswald defender, you should be inherently antagonistic to all Oswald accusers? YOU GOD-DAMN RIGHT THAT'S WHAT I AM SAYING!!!! This is a fucking war, Man! You need to decide which side you're on, and you don't make nice with the fucking enemy.
But, as far as I'm concerned, James: you have completely changed sides. Your only motivation now is opposing me. You'd fucking call the devil himself a "dear", so long as he was fighting me. What a disgrace. What a sellout. What a complete abandonment of principle.
Even if I was in agreement with a lone-nutter about some little point of fact, I would never lose sight of the fact of who he is and what he stands for. It wouldn't make him my friend.
So, what's really happened James is that you just don't care about Oswald any more. You don't care about Kennedy. It's not the war for JFK truth that matters to you but only the war against Cinque.
It really doesn't matter because I can defeat you; I can defeat them; and it doesn't matter how many of you there are. The more the merrier. But still, it disgusts me that you, who formerly embraced the truth, are now actively collaborating with people who not only deny Oswald in the doorway but Oswald innocence. Glenn Viklund supports every bit of the official story, that Oswald owned the rifle, that he went to Irving to get it, that he told Frazier it was curtain rods, that he snuck it into the building with no one seeing it, that he found a time and a place to put it together with no one knowing, that he shot at Kennedy three times and hit him twice, that he shot and killed TIppit, that he shot at Walker, that he wanted to shoot at Nixon but didn't only because Marina locked him in the bathroom, that he went to Mexico City, that there was only one Oswald and he did all the things that Lee did in the Far East because he was Lee, etc. etc. etc. And you call that son of a bitch, dear?
Dear??? Holy Mother of God.
James, you are getting increasingly desperate; increasingly pathetic; and increasingly hopeless. You keep digging yourself in deeper as you align yourself with vile Ops, some of whom engage in criminal acts.
You? A professor? Then may Heaven help your students."
>>>>>End Of Professor Norwood's Letter<<<<<
Thank you James for your candid assessment of the Cinque-hole afflicting the OIC.......
